Author: Linda McKay-Panos Page 22 of 23

Linda McKay-Panos is the Executive Director of the Alberta Civil
Liberties Research Centre. She taught Language Arts and Social Studies with the Calgary Board of Education for 7 years before returning to university to obtain a Law Degree. She practiced law for a time, before joining the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre in 1992 as a Research Associate. Linda is a sessional instructor in the Faculties of Communication and Culture and Law at the University of Calgary. Linda received her Bachelor of Education, Bachelor of Laws and Master of Laws degrees from the University of Calgary. Linda is the President of the Alberta Association for Multicultural Education and the Past President of the Public Legal Education Network of Alberta. Linda is the author of several publications dealing with civil liberties, access to information, human rights, discrimination, equality and related topics. Linda received the 2001 Suzanne Mah Award and an Alberta Centennial Medal in 2005 for her work in human rights in Alberta.

Cases Considered: Darren E. Lund v. Stephen Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. (May 30, 2008 Lori G. Andreachuck, Q.C. Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Remedy Decision Released in the Lund v. Boissoin Case

In an earlier decision released on November 30, 2007, which dealt with a complaint about a hateful message against the gay community published in a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate, online, the Alberta Human Rights Panel (“Panel”) found that Stephen Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. had contravened s. 3 of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (“HRCMA“), R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14. The Panel released its decision on the remedy on May 30, 2008. The original case, together with a few recent cases involving similar provisions in other provinces’ and the federal government’s human rights legislation, has spawned outcry across Canada about limiting the powers of human rights commissions or even doing away with commissions altogether. The remedy ordered in this case has also sparked renewed criticism of the HRCMA (see for example: “Keep Your Promise, Premier: Stand up for freedom of speech” Calgary Herald 06 June 2008 online).

Vriend Ten Years Later

By Linda McKay-Panos

On May 21, 2008

In Constitutional, Human Rights, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: Vriend Ten Years Later

Case Commented On: Vriend v Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493

April 2, 2008 marked the 10th anniversary of the release of the SCC decision in Vriend v Alberta. This decision was remarkable in many ways. First, there were no less than 17 intervenors by the time the case reached the SCC. Our affiliated agency, the Alberta Civil Liberties Association, was one of those intervenors. The case was significant because of the remedy that was ordered by the SCC and because of the analysis that the SCC undertook in determining that sexual orientation should be included as a protected ground in Alberta’s Individual’s Rights Protection Act (“IRPA”, now called the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (“HRCMA”), R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14). It is also interesting to examine what has happened in the area of sexual orientation and human rights since this noteworthy case.

Ombudsman May Review and Make Recommendations Regarding Decisions of Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission

By Linda McKay-Panos

On April 21, 2008

In Human Rights

Cases Considered: Alberta (Ombudsman) v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2008 ABQB 168

PDF Version: Ombudsman May Review and Make Recommendations Regarding Decisions of Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission

This case, although somewhat technical, is interesting from the perspective of a person who would like the Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (“Commission”) to reconsider a decision. Though such cases may be brought to the Court of Queen’s Bench, people often choose not to take that route because the court is limited judicial review – i.e. it will only look at whether the Chief Commissioner (or administrative official in other cases) exercised his or her power in an arbitrary, discriminatory or otherwise unreasonable way when making the decision. Courts do not usually review the evidence in the case, or the decision itself, but instead focus on the process that was followed in arriving at a decision.

Calgary Bar Cannot Discriminate on the Basis of Race or Religion

By Linda McKay-Panos

On April 7, 2008

In Human Rights

Cases Considered: Jaspal Randhawa v. Tequila Bar & Grill Ltd. o/a Tequila Nightclub (March 17, 2008 Alta. H.R.P. Diane Colley-Urquhart, Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Calgary Bar Cannot Discriminate on the Basis of Race or Religion

The Alberta Human Rights Panel (“Panel”) recently joined human rights commissions in other provinces in addressing an all too common complaint—racial discrimination by a popular restaurant or bar. Mr. Jaspal Randhawa complained when he was denied entry into Calgary’s Tequila Bar and Grill Ltd. (“Tequila”) on July 9, 2004. Tequila’s manager, Mr. Harry Dimitriadis, was the respondent. Mr. Randhawa complained that he was denied goods, services and accommodation on the grounds of ancestry, race and religious beliefs, contrary to s.4 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (“HRCMA”), R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14.

Employment and Disability: Some of the Challenges

By Linda McKay-Panos

On March 21, 2008

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

Cases Considered: United Nurses of Alberta, Local 33 v. Capital Health Authority (Royal Alexandra), 2008 ABQB 126

PDF Version: Employment and Disability: Some of the Challenges

The recent decision of Justice D.A. Sulyma in United Nurses of Alberta, Local 33 v. Capital Health Authority (Royal Alexandra) provides insight into the challenges faced by both an employer and an employee in accommodating a disability in the workplace. The employer seeks information about the disability and how it should be accommodated, while the employee seeks to protect his or her privacy, in addition to an accommodation of the disability. The court must sort these issues out while also determining whether the employee has a disability.